- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the accommodation in question and for delivery of vacant possession. The landlord also prayed that a decree for arrears of rent and mense profit be also granted. It was alleged that the defendant is the Union of India and is running a Post Office on a monthly rent in the premises in question and that a composite notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendant terminating the tenancy. It was alleged that inspite of the service of the notice and after the expiry of the period contemplated in the notice, the defendant failed to vacate the premises in question nor deposited the arrears of land. It transpires that the defendant appeared but did not file the written statement and the Judge Small Cause Court passed a decree for eviction of the defendant from the premises in question. The defendants came to know of the ex parte order, when the police entered the Post Officer for evicting the defendant in pursuance of the application moved by the plaintiff for the execution of the decree.
(2.) THE petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs : "to issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the judgment and decree passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, dated 22-1- 1987 and 10-2-1986 respectively; to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. " Heard Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions, namely, that the suit filed by the landlord for recovery of possession was not maintainable before the Court of Judge Small Cause Court. Even otherwise, in view of Ordinance 28 of 1983, the premises in question being a public building was covered under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be evicted except on the ground mentioned under Section 20 of the said Act. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 817, Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, in which it was held that if the Act become applicable to the premises in question during the pendency of the litigation, in that case the benefit of the applicability of the Act should be given.
(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. THE suit was filed in the year 1982. On that date, Section 2 (1) as amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 reads as under : "section 2 (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following namely - (a) any public building; or". By U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, Section 3 (o) was inserted which reads as under : "section 3 (o) "public building", means any building belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government or a State Government (including the Government of any other State), and includes any building belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any local authority or any public sector corporation. ";